patrick.net

Homeboy says

leo707 says

Reduced and struck down are two different things.

Semantics. He struck it down and replaced it with a lesser award. The parties ended up settling for an undisclosed amount. This is documented in many articles. I suggest you educate yourself.

No, in every court document is will never say "struck down and replaced" it will say "reduced." They are two different things.

Also, the compensatory award of $160k was never "struck down" or "reduced."

Homeboy says

leo707 says

It seems pretty clear to me that you are ignoring anything that would lead one to the conclusion that McDonald's was acting willful, wanton, reckless and callous.

Not ignoring - disagreeing. There is a difference.

YOU are the one who ignores facts.

Hmmm...when you imply that the Judge disagreed with the judgement against McDonald's it seems to me like you are ignoring the Judge's actual position on the matter.

leo707 says

Hmmm...when you imply that the Judge disagreed with the judgement against McDonald's it seems to me like you are ignoring the Judge's actual position on the matter.

Instead of repeated ad hominem, why don't you try making an actual argument? Too difficult?

It seems you admit that simply "knowing" there is a remote possibility that your product could cause an injury is not sufficient to establish liability. So now the ball is in your court. You need to provide further arguments.

Homeboy says

leo707 says

No, but if a company acts in a willful, wanton, reckless and callous manor that ends up in the injury of a person then the company should be held liable. This is true.

I agree. However, I disagree that McDonald's did so in this case. The only argument I have heard from any of you is that McDonald's "knew" their coffee could burn people. That is not a sufficient argument to establish negligence.

Judge Scott, and the jury certainly thought there was sufficient evidenced. While we were not privy to all the evidence given in court. From the trial summaries I have read I tend to agree that McDonald's is 80% at fault for the burns. However, had I been on the jury I may have thought differently.

Homeboy says

If you want to make a further argument, please do so. You would be the first.

Nah, I doubt that even if I could replay the entire week of court argument for you that it would change your mind. We can agree to disagree on this.

Homeboy says

leo707 says

Hmmm...when you imply that the Judge disagreed with the judgement against McDonald's it seems to me like you are ignoring the Judge's actual position on the matter.

Instead of repeated ad hominem, why don't you try making an actual argument? Too difficult?

Where is the ad hominem in my comment? Were you not implying that Judge Scott disagreed that McDonald's was at fault?

marcus says

Their coffee is hot enough to burn your mouth now. But I didn't say I thought it was good (because I don't). I also didn't call you a liar. I said that saying their coffee is lukewarm is a lie.

To call me a liar because you disagree on the exact meaning of the vague term "lukewarm" is the height of assholishness. You should consider the ramifications before you accuse someone of lying.

marcus says

Way too much emotion.

I think this is something you say simply when you are on the other "side" of the argument from someone. I am not being emotional at all. I am being logical and analytical. I am the only one here eschewing emotion in my analysis of this case, i.e. "Big corporation bad; sweet old lady good".

marcus says

Fact is I often agree with you, and you have some good points here.

But you're the one that's an obnoxious asshole, and you really should work on that.

I'm not really here to make friends; there are other "club" type forums for that. I am here to dispel ignorance, and there is a LOT of that. I think you are hardly one to talk. I do agree with your point of view more often than not, but that is only because you are a diehard liberal who marches in lockstep with whatever you believe is a "liberal" point of view. I am also a liberal, but tend to have some issues where I think outside the established patterns of being in one "camp" or the other. You, on the other hand, are extremely predictable. Even when I agree with you, I tend to dislike your combative and often condescending style, and I notice that you frequently seem to be at odds with other forum members. People who live in glass houses shouldn't throw stones.

leo707 says

Where is the ad hominem in my comment? Were you not implying that Judge Scott disagreed that McDonald's was at fault?

You keep repeating that I "ignore" facts, rather than making your own arguments. Repeatedly attacking me does not further your point of view. Is that hard for you to understand?

leo707 says

Judge Scott, and the jury certainly thought there was sufficient evidenced. While we were not privy to all the evidence given in court. From the trial summaries I have read I tend to agree that McDonald's is 80% at fault for the burns. However, had I been on the jury I may have thought differently

So your entire argument, in a nutshell is "She won the case, therefore McDonald's is wrong".

O.K., I thought we might be discussing whether we agree or disagree with the decision. I kind of thought that was the whole point here. Apparently, I overestimated everyone.

leo707 says

Homeboy says

If you want to make a further argument, please do so. You would be the first.

Nah, I doubt that even if I could replay the entire week of court argument for you that it would change your mind. We can agree to disagree on this

Ah, more ad hominem, but complete inability to contribute anything of substance. Yep, I definitely overestimated you. I'll take that as capitulation on your part.

Homeboy says

I am not being emotional at all. I am being logical and analytical. I am the only one here eschewing emotion in my analysis of this case.

?

You should probably take a deep breath and self-reflect here.

Homeboy says

I am here to dispel ignorance, and there is a LOT of that.

You are in for a world of disappointment if this is your reason for being here, or anywhere on the intranet.

Everyone knows that if a court decision was made, it HAS to be correct (cough, cough) O.J. Simpson (cough, cough) Rodney King....

leo707 says

Homeboy says

I am not being emotional at all. I am being logical and analytical. I am the only one here eschewing emotion in my analysis of this case.

?

You should probably take a deep breath and self-reflect here.

Homeboy says

I am here to dispel ignorance, and there is a LOT of that.

You are in for a world of disappointment if this is your reason for being here, or anywhere on the intranet.

Ooh, and the lee707 ad hominem fest continues. You must think I have an awfully thin skin if you think you're gonna get to me with those pathetic schoolyard taunts. How sad for you.

Homeboy says

Ah, more ad hominem

Hmmm...I am not quite sure that you understand what "ad hominem" is.

leo707 says

Hmmm...I am not quite sure that you understand what "ad hominem" is.

It's the only thing you are capable of.

Well I have to go because I have a life. Keep those insults coming, guys. I know you don't have anything else to contribute.

Homeboy says

Ooh, and the lee707 ad hominem fest continues. You must think I have an awfully thin skin if you think you're gonna get to me with those pathetic schoolyard taunts.

I am sorry that you are feeling attacked; perhaps you do have a thin skin. I made the comment about self-reflection because clearly you are not aware of how emotional your posts read.

We covered this in my Econ and Law class, I believed the MSM version. The Prof - who was quite the Rational market theorist/neoliberal type - gave us the real background.

If I remember right, McDonald's basically paid little above her legal & medical costs when all was said and done, although the initial judgement was higher.

I also remember that famous Wyoming Lawyer mentioning that Juries are actually harder on the poor than the rich, but even when they give a remotely reasonable judgement, it usually gets eviserated on appeal.

Homeboy--

Just out of curiosity--are you stating:

1. That the judge/jury misapplied the law
2. That the law is incorrect

From the hospital cafeteria where grandma stayed.

The hospital must be trying to drum up business with these gross negligence corporate greed cups.

tatupu70 says

Just out of curiosity--are you stating:

1. That the judge/jury misapplied the law

2. That the law is incorrect

If I'm not mistaken he's just having a temper tantrum because people are pointing out how wrong he is.

Facts:

1) Coffee tastes best if it is not brewed for too long or at too hot a temperature. The negates his reasoning that supposedly McDonald was trying to serve coffee at the extremely scalding hot temperature that makes it taste best.
2) The temperature that Mcds sells their coffee now is not lukewarm by anyones definition, and is at least as hot if not hotter than the temp that starbucks and all the other high end coffee houses sell their drip coffee. But McDs no longer uses styrafoam, that's flimsy or the type of lids they did before. The current cups probably cost more and also probably don't keep the coffee hot as long. But that's an adjustment they were pretty much forced to make.

These two facts alone negate much of what seems to have been causing Homeboy's tantrum.

The true capitalist society would quarter and dismember her for even trying to sue and then thrown her "leftovers" into a coal mine...

Vaticanus says

From the hospital cafeteria where grandma stayed.

The hospital must be trying to drum up business with these gross negligence corporate greed cups.

How did they get the cup to stick to the wall like that?

Homeboy says

marcus says

Way too much emotion.

I think this is something you say simply when you are on the other "side" of the argument from someone.

No, it's the way I react when someone reacts to my stating a fact, that McDs does not serve their coffee lukewarm in this way...

And to call someone a liar just because you can't tell the difference between a good cup of coffee and a bad one is incredibly obnoxious

then after I clarify......

Homeboy says

To call me a liar because you disagree on the exact meaning of the vague term "lukewarm" is the height of assholishness. You should consider the ramifications before you accuse someone of lying.

I get it, when you lie, you can't handle being called on it. MAybe you wouldn't blow a gasket if I had just said that what you said was not true.

HAve you considered getting your medication adjusted ?

Homeboy says

I am not being emotional at all.

Bullshit. You are constantly 90% emotion, and not just in this thread.

You say I'm condescending. Yes with trolls like Fort Wayne, or Thommywong, and also sometimes with the Captain or even Bap who's a good ole boy, but trolls the liberals sometimes, and likes to state his point of view almost as a satire of himself. And I guess occasionally with Mish.

Homeboy says

I think outside the established patterns of being in one "camp" or the other. You, on the other hand, are extremely predictable.

No more predictable than you. When it comes to issues that I part company with some liberals on, such as some forms of affirmative action quotas for medical schools or law schools, I feel no desire show my cards on this one, because the trend is going the way that it should anyway. And also because it's an opinion that I share with racists.

I also have defended religion on several occasions which is out of step with the typical liberal.

You have such an extreme ego, that I tend to think that you might be the alter ego of another super arrogant poster to this forum that I won't name at this time. It's weird the way anonymity brings out such extreme displays of some peoples inner douche bag.

CDon says

The distinction here in the McDonalds case is (a) they knew there was a problem and (b) did not take reasonable/substantial efforts to fix it. Therefore, (c) punitive damages were allowed to be considered.

This makes sense.

Wouldn't it be cool if we lived in a world in which Homeboy could just admit he was wrong ?

CDon says

The distinction here in the McDonalds case is (a) they knew there was a problem and (b) did not take reasonable/substantial efforts to fix it. Therefore, (c) punitive damages were allowed to be considered.

But it WASN'T a problem. That's what I keep saying. This is from the attorney who argued the case:

http://www.mgrlaw.net/mcdonalds.htm

"McDonald's Corp. has known about this unacceptable risk for more than 10 years, and it was brought to its attention through other lawsuits, repeatedly, to no avail. (More than 700 reported claims from 1982-1992). McDonald's produced a witness who said this number of burned people was statistically "trivial"."

Now this is rather funny. He recounts the argument made by McDonalds' attorney as though it were absurd. But what is absurd about it? It is in fact an eminently logical argument. Let's do some math: one billion cups of coffee served each year, and 700 claims of burns in 10 years (also note that it doesn't say 700 claims of serious burns, so I assume he's including people who were only mildly burned). O.K., so that's 10 billion cups of coffee, divided by 700 equals 0.0000007. So you have a 0.00007% chance of being burned by a cup of McDonald's coffee. Can you even comprehend how small a number that is? How insignificant that risk is? If 10% of the people who buy McDonald's coffee are burned, that's a huge problem. If 0.00007% of people who buy McDonald's coffee are burned - not so much. You actually have a greater chance of dying in your bathtub than you have of getting burned by McDonald's coffee, yet nobody is clamoring to outlaw bathtubs. Obviously the math went over the head of the judge and the jury, but c'mon - you seem like a reasonably intelligent person. Please tell me you understand what I'm saying.

I can't even find the number of lawsuits that have been filed against McDonald's, but one source suggested literally millions of lawsuits. At any rate, I'm sure the number is huge. I'm reasonably certain that 700 would be only a drop in the bucket. Everyone, yourself included, is failing to understand the immense size of that corporation.

marcus says

CDon says

The distinction here in the McDonalds case is (a) they knew there was a problem and (b) did not take reasonable/substantial efforts to fix it. Therefore, (c) punitive damages were allowed to be considered.

This makes sense.

Only on a very superficial level. It wasn't actually a problem, and it is entirely unreasonable to expect a company to take action for something that there was only a 0.00007% chance of happening.

Wouldn't it be cool if we lived in a world in which Homeboy could just admit he was wrong ?

Wouldn't it be nice if Marcus paid attention to the FACTS I am presenting, rather than limiting himself to a very simplistic and incomplete understanding of the issues?

marcus says

Homeboy says

I am not being emotional at all.

Bullshit. You are constantly 90% emotion, and not just in this thread.

"You're emotional"

"Actually, I'm being quite logical and reasonable"

"NUH UH!!! YOU'RE BEING EMOTIONAL!!!!!!"

LOL

marcus says

No, it's the way I react when someone reacts to my stating a fact, that McDs does not serve their coffee lukewarm in this way...

Really? You're gonna stick to this nitpick over the definition of a vague term like "lukewarm"? Oh God, how pathetic.

marcus says

You have such an extreme ego, that I tend to think that you might be the alter ego of another super arrogant poster to this forum that I won't name at this time.

Oh geez - now a sock puppet accusation. Seriously, Marcus - you have hit a new low. No, I don't have any alter egos here. I guess since I pretty much annihilated you with facts and logic, that's all you have left. You really ought to give up. You're just embarrassing yourself now.

humanity says

Facts:

1) Coffee tastes best if it is not brewed for too long or at too hot a temperature.

That is not a fact. You just made that up. I already posted TWO sources that say coffee MUST be brewed at 200 degrees for best taste.

To make up nonsense with no factual basis whatsoever, then accuse people of being "emotional" when they correct you, is the oldest and silliest ploy on the internet.

CDon says

Actually, it could be insignificant and you can still find liability for punitive damages.

You could, but you would be wrong.

tatupu70 says

Homeboy--

Just out of curiosity--are you stating:

1. That the judge/jury misapplied the law

2. That the law is incorrect

1.

If you had to ask me that, I don't think you have really read and/or comprehended what I have written.

Homeboy says

If you had to ask me that, I don't think you have really read and/or
comprehended what I have written.

Homeboy says

CDon
says

Actually, it could be insignificant and you can still find liability for
punitive damages.

You could, but you would be wrong.

Certainly seems like you are arguing the law there.

Homeboy says

humanity says

Facts:

1) Coffee tastes best if it is not brewed for too long or at too hot a temperature.

That is not a fact. You just made that up. I already posted TWO sources that say coffee MUST be brewed at 200 degrees for best taste.

To make up nonsense with no factual basis whatsoever, then accuse people of being "emotional" when they correct you, is the oldest and silliest ploy on the internet.

The Aeropress which is similar in concept to a french press (I know I'm getting way above your idea of good coffee here), is very explicit about brewing the coffee at 175 degrees. It then pours directly in to the cup. I sometimes heat it a little after in the microwave. But this is truly awesome coffee. Far above any that you've ever made.

The success of this product is based on coffee lovers experiencing awesome coffee, and the product is very successful, even though it is a single cup of cofee maker that is not the most efficient or convenient way to make coffee.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AeroPress

Here are the aeropress instructions calling for brewing at 175 degrees "for the very best taste"

http://aerobie.com/images/AeroPress%20Instructions%20for%20Web%20L.pdf

marcus says

Wouldn't it be cool if we lived in a world in which Homeboy could just admit he was wrong ?

Didn't think it was going to happen.

Homeboy says

Wouldn't it be nice if Marcus paid attention to the FACTS I am presenting, rather than limiting himself to a very simplistic and incomplete understanding of the issues?

Funny my observation was that your presentation was simplistic and that the following should have been enough for you to understand that.

CDon says

The distinction here in the McDonalds case is (a) they knew there was a problem and (b) did not take reasonable/substantial efforts to fix it. Therefore, (c) punitive damages were allowed to be considered.

Homeboy says

Why does everyone just knee-jerk spit out "terrible analogy" when the analogy was spot on? Try to think for a second before you start typing. That is EXACTLY what people are suggesting. They are suggesting that we cannot have coffee over 155 degrees because there is a remote chance that someone could receive serious burns from it. Explain to me how that is ANY different from arguing that we can't have nail guns, for example. People injure themselves all the time with those things.

Okay, I'll explain, but not that you really want me to.

First, as I said before, coffee is served at Mcds these days just as hot as starbucks or anywhere alse. Around 170 or slightly lower.

If a company sold nail guns that sometimes exploded, and that shot the nails at velocities twice as high as needed, and there was an easy fix for both, then that would be a good analogy.

McDonals sold coffee that was well above 170 degrees with cups that were flimsy and super flexible wit the cover off (when filled with hot liquid), and withe lids that come off too easily. These were all things that could be changed.

Finally, McDonalds coffee was always pretty bad.. Apparently making terrible coffee burning hot is what some people call "good coffee." This is something I simply do not understand.

If the coffee was a little better before, it's because they used better beans then. Perhaps the increased spending on cups and lids was offset by using lower grade beans.

Homeboy says

O.K., so that's 10 billion cups of coffee, divided by 700 equals 0.0000007. So
you have a 0.00007% chance of being burned by a cup of McDonald's coffee. Can
you even comprehend how small a number that is? How insignificant that risk is?
If 10% of the people who buy McDonald's coffee are burned, that's a huge
problem. If 0.00007% of people who buy McDonald's coffee are burned - not so
much. You actually have a greater chance of dying in your bathtub than you have
of getting burned by McDonald's coffee, yet nobody is clamoring to outlaw
bathtubs. Obviously the math went over the head of the judge and the jury, but
c'mon - you seem like a reasonably intelligent person. Please tell me you
understand what I'm saying.

I understand precisely what you are saying. You are basically arguing from a common sense standpoint. What I am telling you is that in this situation, the law says otherwise, and even the most infinitesimally small number can throw you into the realm where punitive damages are on the table. The law is essentially a bright line rule here between 0 (where punitive damages usually wont be considered) and 1 or any higher number where punitive damages are on the table. Accordingly, even if the number of people burned constitutes 0.0000000000000000001% the law says that is enough, you now have some extremely minimal duties to investigate if you want to avoid punitive damages.

Homeboy says

CDon
says

Actually, it could be insignificant and you can still find liability for
punitive damages.

You could, but you would be wrong.

OK, I will admit, this is a very specialized intersection of the law on damages and products liability law which is not my strong suit. So perhaps you can educate me.

What I can tell you is I do serve as general counsel for a franchise. Part of our franchise agreement with the manufacturer imposes upon my client a duty to inspect any situation of product failure. 99.9999% of the time, the service technicians have seen it before, note that "X happened" and thats it. 0.0001% of the time, if it is something new or that they have never experienced before, they will call me. When that happens, I document it, perhaps even call corporate counsel for the manufacturer to discuss. Every so often we bring in the service manager or engineer to elaborate on our findings. Either way, once complete we feel comfortable that we have done our duty such that neither of our clients (franchisor, or franchisee) is going to have to worry about punitive damages if some consumer tries to sue us.

But again, I do have to plead ignorance here. By simply telling me that I am "wrong", I am hoping you can educate me on the law here. Since most of this comes from hundreds of years of common law, and varies incredibly by state, I am very much speaking in generalities here. However, if you have knowledge of New Mexico cannon that states otherwise, such that you can substantiate the claim that the judge "misapplied" the law, I would be interested to know.

Full disclosure here - if anyone wants to know if I am "emotional", truth of the matter is, I am. I am experiencing a mix of anger and frustration as I resent the idea that I don't know what I am talking about from someone who likely has little to no legal training whatsoever. So if anyone is hoping for "lulz" here, you got em, cuz ha ha, I am mad.

That said, Homeboy, if you cut through the sarcasm and passive aggressive nature of my response, I do want to express my sincere desire to know if you do in fact have specialized knowledge of NM cannon or otherwise that makes me "wrong". I am wrong a lot in life so I do try to keep my ego in check such that I can learn new things when the situation warrants.

Guys, when Homeboy gets this hysterical it's compassionate to remember his medicated condition:
Many things can cause serotonin levels to become imbalanced: chronic stress, improper diet, and hormone fluctuations. SSRI drugs, while ineffective, are certainly also unpredictable.
I'm sure he does his best to keep his brain chemistry somewhat balanced.